How we write, review, and update GoodABA content

Who writes this

Content on goodaba.com is produced by the GoodABA editorial team — a small group inside GoodABA that includes ABA agency operators, BCBAs, and writers who’ve sat on both sides of the buyer table. Clinical content (YMYL — anything where a wrong answer could harm a child or break a regulation) is additionally reviewed by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst.

Where AI helps

We use large language models — primarily Claude — to help with:

• Research. Pulling public facts about a tool from vendor sites, G2, Capterra, Reddit, recent news, and other public sources. Citations are stored on the page.
• Drafting. First-pass writing of pros/cons, capability matrices, FAQ entries, and explanatory passages.
• Updating. Quarterly refreshes flag stale facts and propose edits.

Where humans stay in the loop

Every page passes a structural lint check before it can publish — required sources, capability matrix, pros/cons coverage, FAQ count, banned-phrase scan. A human reviewer does a factual sanity pass on every tool entry and comparison verdict before publish. Comparison pages without a human-written verdict render with noindex until the verdict is added.

How we rank tools

We score every tool on six axes: clinical fit for ABA workflows, billing and authorization handling, family/parent experience, integration depth, pricing transparency, and support quality. Each axis is rated from a mix of public sources, vendor demos, and operator interviews. We exclude tools without first-hand operator feedback. Tools that don’t publish pricing get a specific flag in the rubric — they’re not auto-disqualified, but buyers should know.

Conflicts of interest

GoodABA is itself an ABA software product, and we’re honest about that in three ways:

• We include GoodABA in our buyer’s guides. Every SaaS company in this space puts itself on its own roundups. Pretending otherwise would be dishonest, and excluding ourselves would also be dishonest because we genuinely compete in some of these categories (intake, e-sign, family communications). Where GoodABA appears on a roundup, the card is visually distinguished and tagged “Our product” so readers can weigh that context.
• The verdict text is honest about where we don’t compete. On categories where GoodABA isn’t a real competitor (billing, data collection, telehealth, fax, phone), we’re ranked last with an explicit “not where we compete” note that points readers to the actual leader in the category. The point of including ourselves there is to surface the operational layer most agencies overlook — not to mislead.
• Branded /goodaba-vs/[tool] pages are clearly identified by URL and heading. We don’t accept paid placement, sponsorships, or referral fees from any tool covered on this site. If that ever changes, this page will say so.

How to flag an error

If you see an inaccuracy, especially in pricing, integration claims, or compliance details — email editorial@goodaba.com. We update within 7 business days and publish a change log on every page that’s materially corrected.

Last reviewed

April 30, 2026.